Harmony between the Bible and the Qur'an

[Follower]

Abd-al - I agree the Quran says that the Jews did not kill or crucify Jesus, nothing more. Docetism is a Christian heresy believing that Jesus had only an apparent body. Did Mohammad believe this?

What is the purpose of the sacrifice story with Abraham? What was the momentous sacrifice given by GOD- the ram?!?

When the Quran was revealed did all the verses from one chapter revealed at once or was it piecemeal, a few verses at a time? I know the chapters were compiled later, when were the verses placed into each chapter?

Banu read a bit further-
Matthew17
5While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

6When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. "Get up," he said. "Don't be afraid." 8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

GOD said this, the disciples heard it and either wrote about it or passed it directly onto the person that wrote Matthew in 70-90AD. In the Holy Bible there are always eyewitnesses to events.

Can we all agree that Jesus is GOD's WORD incarnate?

Kalimatuhu: God's Word 3:45, 4:171

The word "kalimatuhu" is God's personal word which exists from eternity and is uncreated. Being eternal would also imply that Jesus is both distinct from God,eternally inseperable from God and thus God by nature.

 

[GreyKode]

Being eternal would also imply that Jesus is both distinct from God,eternally inseperable from God and thus God by nature.

Does anyone else find this :enough!::enough!:

Youre trying to make it sound logical

here's what youre saying

1)A is not B

2) A (contained in) B

3)Thus A is B and not B at the same time.

 

[Walter]

Hi AKK:

Jesus is the son of God Grenville? Well then, let's look at his brothers in divinity shall we?

Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22.

Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14.

etc, etc

Very good AKK. So we are agreed. The Qur'an definately does not address the concept or concepts of Son of God as defined in the Bible.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[GreyKode]

Grenville cut the the BS... OK!

Your not making sense,

“This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!” (Matthew 17:5b)

What DOES SON MEAN?????

Spiritual son? then read AKKs post.

Biological son? then refer to what you said

Actually, I do not believe that there is a single Christian alive today who also does not find the very idea of the Son of God as described in the Qur’an as offensive as Mohammed found it.

plus don't come here assuming prophet muhammed(pbuh) was the author of the Qur'an and then say we want to balance the marble on the table.
You are refusing the Islamic tradition interpretation and we for the sake of argument have agreed to that, but then you keep making up your own baseless interpretations :

Therefore, it appears that the Qur’an was not addressing the concept of ‘Son of God’ as presented in the Bible, but rather, the concept of gods compounding through sexual intercourse with a consort, as was the religious traditional knowledge in the region. It should be noted that missionaries from unorthodox ‘Christian’ groups, with similar teachings, were in the region spreading such teachings that are unsupported by both the Bible and the Qur’an.

And where does the bible contradict this idea or even clarify the concept of son as you explained.

 

[Walter]

[/COLOR]
Does anyone else find this :enough!::enough!:

Hold on Grey Kode. We have not even started to discuss your concerns. Please be patient.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

Dear Banu:

When in Christianity, Christians say God said something, what is the belief of how it was transmitted? To me, it looks like the author of this quote is Matthew. I understand the Gospel was written many years after the death of Jesus (peace be upon him), so how do Christians know Jesus himself professed him being the son of God?

The quotation recorded by Matthew, a disciple of Jesus, is that God declared that Jesus was His beloved Son. This account is corroborated by the accounts recorded by Mark and Luke. Hence, Christians have a high level of confidence that the corroborated accounts are accurate.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[جوري]

"Israel is my son, even my firstborn." II Samuel 7:14 and I Chronicles 22:10: "...and he shall be my son (Solomon)." Jeremiah 31:9: "...and Ephraim is my firstborn." Also, Psalm 2:7.


would the real son of God pls take your place in the beginning of the line? Seems 'God' has many kids?

 

[YusufNoor]

Dear Banu:


The quotation recorded by Matthew, a disciple of Jesus,

THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE!

is that God declared that Jesus was His beloved Son. This account is corroborated by the accounts recorded by Mark and Luke.

THAT'S NOT TRUE EITHER!

Hence, Christians have a high level of confidence that the corroborated accounts are accurate.

they have a high level of something alright! but TRUTH isn't it!

Regards,
Grenville

OH goody, we get to do this again!

there's NO EVIDENCE that Mathew wrote Mathew! EVEN "Christian" Scholars acknowledge that! regarding Mathew:

btw, QUOTE: From The Interpreters One-Volume Commentary on the Bible Including the Apocrypha with General Articles Copyright 1971 by Abingon Press 15th Printing 1994: Howard Clarke Kee, in his introduction to the Gospel According to Matthew in the section titled: Authorship. From the 2nd Century down to the present, Christians have believed that the first gospel in the NT was also the first to be written and that the author was Matthew the tax collector, a disciple of Jesus. The source of this persistent belief can be traced back as far as circa A.D. 130, when Papias, a bishop in Hierapolis, a city in Asia Minor, wrote a work titled “Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord.” His writing, which is known only from fragments quoted by later Christian writers, reports that Matthew, the disciple, compiled the sayings of the Lord in Hebrew. Those that have quoted Papias seem to have accepted his statement without question as referring to the First gospel.

There are several difficulties with this assumption, however. (a) The gospel consists of a rather full account of Jesus’ public ministry, not merely a series of sayings. (b) Detailed analysis of Matthew shows that the author used Mark as one of his sources. (c) Mark and therefore Matthew, for which Mark was a source were written in Greek, not Hebrew. In view of these difficulties, it is plausible to assume that Papias was referring, not to Matthew, as we know it, but perhaps to a now lost collection of sayings of Jesus.

If we do not accept Papias’ theory, then we must acknowledge that we have no evidence for the origin of Matthew and no assurance of the author’s name. The gospel itself makes no such claim; indeed all the gospels are anonymous. Later tradition has attached names for convenience, but we should recognize that authority of the writings rested in the power of the message, not in the personal authority of the author. END QUOTE

so to summerize, ALL the Gospels were anonymous and the names were given mainly for convenience. Matthew MAY have been the author of "Q", that sounds reasonable however in light of the other information

so much for confidence, eh?

 

[Walter]

Hi Yusuf Noor:

OH goody, we get to do this again!

there's NO EVIDENCE that Mathew wrote Mathew! EVEN "Christian" Scholars acknowledge that!

OK Yusuf, let us call it the Gospel attributed to Matthew. The infromation is corroborated in the accounts of the Gospels attributed to Mark and Luke.

There are several difficulties with this assumption, however. (a) The gospel consists of a rather full account of Jesus’ public ministry, not merely a series of sayings.

So what?

(b) Detailed analysis of Matthew shows that the author used Mark as one of his sources.

I have not found this to be true. Have you Yusuf?

(c) Mark and therefore Matthew, for which Mark was a source were written in Greek, not Hebrew. In view of these difficulties, it is plausible to assume that Papias was referring, not to Matthew, as we know it, but perhaps to a now lost collection of sayings of Jesus.

This assertion cannot be verified. Therefore, it is in the realm of speculative opinion, which you appear quite willing to promote as a fact.

"we should recognize that authority of the writings rested in the power of the message, not in the personal authority of the author."

so much for confidence, eh?

As the author noted, we have confidence in the message Yusuf.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

Hi GK:

What DOES SON MEAN?????

Spiritual son? then read AKKs post.

Biological son? then refer to what you said

What does the Biblical concept mean? Well, there is insufficient evidence in the Bible to conclusively state what it means, and for me to start speculating what it means here would throw us into an unnecessary religious traditional tangent from which we may not recover. However, there is sufficient evinced to state what it does not mean. It does not mean that Jesus is the result of a sexual union between God and a consort. Hence, there is harmony between the Bible and the Qur’an on that point.
Regards,
Grenville

 

[جوري]

what is Jesus' mother tongue.. I am curious about his most fundamental attributes?
is a full list of saying known to his followers?
have scholars agreed on what tongue those sayings have been uttered in?

Among the guesswork of early scholars in this regard, we have: a Galilean dialect of Chaldaic (J.J.Scaliger); Syriac (claude Saumaise); the dialect of Onkelos and Johnathan (Brian Walton); Greek (vossius); Hebrew (Delitzsch and Resch); Aramiac (Meyer), and even Latin. (Inchofer, for ''the Lord Cannot have used any other language upon earth, since this is the language of the saints in heaven'')
Schweitzer, PP 271, 275

let's start with that before the 'confidence in the message'
what say you?

 

[BlackMamba]

Hi GK:



What does the Biblical concept mean? Well, there is insufficient evidence in the Bible to conclusively state what it means, and for me to start speculating what it means here would throw us into an unnecessary religious traditional tangent from which we may not recover. However, there is sufficient evinced to state what it does not mean. It does not mean that Jesus is the result of a sexual union between God and a consort. Hence, there is harmony between the Bible and the Qur’an on that point.
Regards,
Grenville

How can a Christian that reads the Bible like you not even know the fundamental beliefs of his/her own religion? This definitely seems like a problem, not with you, but with the religion itself. You (and probably most Christians) do not even know what Jesus is. Christians do not know if he was just another "son of god" (as several people in bible are labeled) or an actual biological son of god. And this is one of the main topcis of the religion! Christians dont know who to pray to now. How can a religion with this much confusion be correct?
And back to the thread topic, how can we show 2 books are harmonious when we do not even know what one of them is talking about. We, according to you, cannot gather sufficient proof from the Bible to tell whether Jesus was a son of god or a "son of god". Wow.

 

[YusufNoor]

Hi Yusuf Noor:

OK Yusuf, let us call it the Gospel attributed to Matthew. The infromation is corroborated in the accounts of the Gospels attributed to Mark and Luke.

again, QUOTE:indeed all the gospels are anonymous. Later tradition has attached names for convenience: END QUOTE; as you say later, the AUTHORSHIP AS WELL AS THE CONTENTS ARE QUOTE: in the realm of speculative opinion, which you appear quite willing to promote as a fact. END QUOTE

conclusion, your ENTIRE Religion is based upon speculative opinion, which you appear quite willing to promote as fact!

So what?

the document, which only exists in fragments and is used to "verify" Matthew, DOES NOT ACTUALLY verify Matthew! but i understand the "so what?", you simply don't care if you believe in a ruse or not.

I have not found this to be true. Have you Yusuf?

oh please, inform us of your efforts to verify the "unknown author" is a source for the "unknown author!" or did you just lie because you don't want to believe it?

This assertion cannot be verified. Therefore, it is in the realm of speculative opinion, which you appear quite willing to promote as a fact.

actually, you just described your entire Religion. ONLY what the Qur'a, confirms can be verified!

As the author noted, we have confidence in the message Yusuf.

Regards,
Grenville

then we must acknowledge that we have no evidence for the origin of Matthew and no assurance of the author’s name. The gospel itself makes no such claim; indeed all the gospels are anonymous. Later tradition has attached names for convenience, but we should recognize that authority of the writings rested in the power of the message, not in the personal authority of the author

that ABSOLUTELY defines Christianity! you have no source, but you like the message, for convenience...

 

[Walter]

Hi Gossamer & Yusuf Noor:

The study started by assuming that both the Bible and the Qur’an were correct. By now, you must be aware that you cannot convince a Christian that the Bible is incorrect, and no-one can convince a Muslim that the Qur’an is incorrect. Therefore, why go down a road that we all know will certainly lead to conflict?

If you really want that discussion, then I would be happy to engage you. I believe that the evidence for the Bible being authentic is abundant, while the evidence for the authenticity of the Qur’an is vulnerable to criticism. However, why would you want us to waste time rehashing the same familiar arguments, when we are both painfully aware of the outcome?

Therefore, for the purposes of this discussion, arguing about the language that Jesus spoke, and trying to authenticate the author of Matthew, is irrelevant.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

Hi Shakoor:

How can a Christian that reads the Bible like you not even know the fundamental beliefs of his/her own religion? This definitely seems like a problem, not with you, but with the religion itself. You (and probably most Christians) do not even know what Jesus is.

I am aware of the fundamentals of both Christianity and Islam. It seems that you wish Christians to include ‘the process of how Jesus came to be the Son of God’ in their category of fundamentals. I am sorry Shakoor. That is unnecessary. Since the Bible does not explicitly state how Jesus came to be the Son of God, then your opinion is just as valid as mine, provided that we do not damage any of the evidence in the Bible.

Shakoor, the history of the Church is filled with periods where some Christian religious leaders had decided that their speculative opinion had to be an obligatory belief. Those who held alternate beliefs which were supported by the Bible were tortured, had their property confiscated, and murdered. That is what can result when a religious leader feels pressured to provide a conclusive explanation to an issue in which there is insufficient evidence. You should therefore desist from that practise.

There is abundant evidence in the Bible, which is harmonious with the teachings in the Qur’an, about who Jesus is. We know that He is unlike other men in that He was born of the virgin Mary without a human father. The Qur’an teaches that Jesus is not a product of a sexual union with God and a consort. So far the harmony remains. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, but does not define the actual process. The Qur’an refers the reader to believe the revelation in the Gospel; therefore harmony between the Bible and the Qur’an remains.

Next. Let us examine the truth about the Trinity, for which the study found harmony between teachings of the Qur’an and the Bible.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[جوري]

I really don't think you want to go down the road of authenticity of the bible or even remotely compare it to that of the Quran, I promise you, you and your bible wouldn't stand a chance.. secondly if the bible can be compared to anything at all, it would be the hadith, and even they come with a hefty chain of Isnad, something the bible fails to afford with its anonymous writers.
The Quran is out of your league!

and you are right, there is nothing to engage, I have wondered the frivolity of this thread early in.. you need not stand at page 16 to conclude there is no Harmony. The mythos that is the man/god falls to pieces with mere common sense, let alone the contradiction that is the bible (against its own self)

all the best

 

[BlackMamba]

Hi Shakoor:



I am aware of the fundamentals of both Christianity and Islam. It seems that you wish Christians to include ‘the process of how Jesus came to be the Son of God’ in their category of fundamentals. I am sorry Shakoor. That is unnecessary. Since the Bible does not explicitly state how Jesus came to be the Son of God, then your opinion is just as valid as mine, provided that we do not damage any of the evidence in the Bible.

Shakoor, the history of the Church is filled with periods where some Christian religious leaders had decided that their speculative opinion had to be an obligatory belief. Those who held alternate beliefs which were supported by the Bible were tortured, had their property confiscated, and murdered. That is what can result when a religious leader feels pressured to provide a conclusive explanation to an issue in which there is insufficient evidence. You should therefore desist from that practise.

There is abundant evidence in the Bible, which is harmonious with the teachings in the Qur’an, about who Jesus is. We know that He is unlike other men in that He was born of the virgin Mary without a human father. The Qur’an teaches that Jesus is not a product of a sexual union with God and a consort. So far the harmony remains. The Bible teaches that Jesus is the Son of God, but does not define the actual process. The Qur’an refers the reader to believe the revelation in the Gospel; therefore harmony between the Bible and the Qur’an remains.

Next. Let us examine the truth about the Trinity, for which the study found harmony between teachings of the Qur’an and the Bible.

Regards,
Grenville

Wow ok ok it seems like you misunderstood me. All I'm saying is that you cannot even conclude from the Bible whether Jesus was actually a son of god meaning the trinity thing you guys got going. Like the father, the son, the spirit. Or if Jesus was just another "son of god" like one of the 70+ people in the bible. (Example "Adam, which was the son of God." Luke 3:38.)
And yes this is a fundamental part of the religion, how can it not be. It's about whether your god is the real son of god or just a "son of god" like the many mentioned in the bible.

And please do not try to harmonize Islam with Christianity. Even though the Bible doesnt really explicitly mention the trinity, christians that have been studying the bible their whole lives accept the trinity so the bible must have some verse that makes you guys base your whole religion on it.
So assuming the trinity is mentioned somewhere in the bible, there is really no harmony.
Read surah 112 Al-Ikhlas
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.

They do blaspheme who say: "(Allah) is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. (5:72)


If you still somehow thing there is harmony, then there is something in Psychology called Confirmation Bias. Studies show that we tend to look for evidence that confirms our beliefs and ignore evidence that contradicts what we believe to be true. The Confirmation Bias often leads to a person finding the wrong solution because of ignoring evidence. This is what you are going through.

 

[Walter]

i Shakoor:

... And please do not try to harmonize Islam with Christianity. ... So assuming the trinity is mentioned somewhere in the bible, there is really no harmony.

Let me first respond to your assertions.

1. I have repeatedly stated that Islamic and Christian religious traditions are in conflict.

2. You are correct in assuming what is in the Bible. However, please note that your assumption is completely incorrect. I am sympathetic to your dilemma. Like most Muslims, you have not actually read the Bible. Instead, you have listened to what others have told you what they think that Christians believe, rather than what the Bible actually states. We Christians are in the same stupid boat. We bluntly refuse to read the Qur’an, but are eager to listen to our teachers tell us about what they think that Muslims believe, rather than what is actually contained in the Qur’an.

Now let us examine this issue of the trinity.

The Qur’an responds to a trinity of 'mother, father and son', or 'father, wife, adn son'. This is related to the Qur’an’s rejection of the concept of a son arising out of a sexual union with a wife. This concept of the trinity was being taught in the region. However, this concept is not supported by the Bible nor the Qur’an, so the marble remains on the table. We shall examine the Biblical concept when we look at the issue of Jesus being God.

Regards.

 

[Grace Seeker]

what is Jesus' mother tongue..

Given that Jesus didn't write anything, that is hardly a relevant question.

You speak more than one language; if I remember correctly, English is NOT your native language. Yet, don't you think that if you were to observe a fellow doctor who speaks your native tongue perform a surgery, you could not only write a report on that surgery, but you could write it in English? Your report would not have to be in the doctor's native tongue, because you are fully capable of writing in English that which you have observed without regard to the languages spoke by the others in the operating room. The story would be true because you are able to write in English and you would write the truth. In fact, the language of the doctor who performed the surgery would be totally irrelevant to the veracity of your telling of the event.

In the same way, the language of Jesus is totally irrelevant to the Matthew's (or any Gospel writer's) narrative of Jesus' actions that are announced by the Gospel writers as good news for mankind.

 

[جوري]

Given that Jesus didn't write anything, that is hardly a relevant question.

You speak more than one language; if I remember correctly, English is NOT your native language. Yet, don't you think that if you were to observe a fellow doctor who speaks your native tongue perform a surgery, you could not only write a report on that surgery, but you could write it in English? Your report would not have to be in the doctor's native tongue, because you are fully capable of writing in English that which you have observed without regard to the languages spoke by the others in the operating room. The story would be true because you are able to write in English and you would write the truth. In fact, the language of the doctor who performed the surgery would be totally irrelevant to the veracity of your telling of the event.

In the same way, the language of Jesus is totally irrelevant to the Matthew's (or any Gospel writer's) narrative of Jesus' actions that are announced by the Gospel writers as good news for mankind.

If the words of God aren't relevant then what is? We are not talking a mere operation which can as well be demonstrated in diagrams if all else fails. We are talking the focus and objective God has for the world he created.. you are here, and this is what I want from you..
Given that saul has done away with most of the rituals of the OT rendering you singing to the organ and praying before statues, I am not surprised that, what god said and in what tongue matters not!


all the best